Ahead of Its Time!
There were a few mistakes in the
“Sharper Focus” article about Joe Beshar’s
Me 163 Komet in the July 2004 Model
Aviation.
The most obvious was in the caption for
the flight photo, which suggested that it
could have been taken in the skies over
Germany in 1911! That certainly would
have been a surprising sight that year. The
correct year was 1944.
In the second paragraph of the article,
on page 66, there is a reference to B-117s.
That should have read “B-17s.”
The fourth paragraph from the bottom
on page 67 reads that TAM Manufacturing
supplied the tailpipe used in the model.
Actually, Joe Beshar fabricated the tailpipe
with some help from Bill Stevick of Dively
Models.
Also, Val Flores took the large lead
photo and Gordon Dickens took the flight
shot.
Correction
The telephone number for Harry B.
Higley & Sons was incorrect in the August
2004 “Worth a Closer Look” section. The
correct number is (708) 755-8774.
The MA staff apologizes for the error.
Memories of Flying for Fun
Much thanks to D.B. Mathews for his
“Flying for Fun” columns about Reginald
Denny in your July and August issues. It
was 1939 when we moved into a duplex on
Gower Street between Hollywood and
Sunset Boulevard; it didn’t take long to
discover Denny’s Hobby Shop just a few
blocks from Gower on Hollywood
Boulevard.
One of the big attractions for a 12-yearold
boy was the approximately 10-footwingspan
static scale model of the China
Clipper in the front window—this was used
in several movies.
Those early years began with rubberband
models, gas, Free Flight, then CL,
thanks to Walker. Now at 76 years of life, I
love flying CL Stunt and RC, both of which
have come a long way since those early
days.
What a disappointment when I returned
to Hollywood High for my 50th reunion to
find only vacant lots where my model
airplane adventures began! But memories
were relived thanks to Mr. Mathews and
MA.
Gene Haynes
Florence, Oregon
I just finished reading D.B. Mathews’
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
October 2004 9
“Flying For Fun” column in the August
issue of MA. It was great reading about the
GHQ engine. I am a 78-year-old RC flier, so
I go back to the time of the GHQ.
When I was in the eighth grade, I dearly
wished to have a gas engine but couldn’t
afford one. To my surprise, my dad gave me
one for Christmas. The GHQ came in two
versions: fully assembled for about $10 or
in kit form for only $5. Mine was the kit,
and after putting it together, I made a test
stand on the back porch and tried to start it.
The kit came with a flywheel which my
dad also provided for me. I wrapped a
length of black electrical tape around the
flywheel’s hub and gave a pull. After some
adjusting I actually got it running. It ran
great and I was really excited.
However, when I attached the propeller
it would not start. Nothing I did would get
more than a feeble pop. It’s not quite true
that these engines would never run. As long
as the flywheel was on it ran great, but
never with a propeller.
At the New York World’s Fair I came
across some guys who were racing boats.
Two of them had GHQs in their boats. Of
course they had flywheels and ran pretty
well. So it is not quite true that the GHQ
would never run. But then, flywheels were
not too practical to fly aircraft with.
Thanks for a great column which
brought back many pleasant memories.
Bob Wright
Mesa, Arizona
Fundamentals of Stability
Kudos for trying to help the beginners
understand model airplanes. Unfortunately,
it is not easy to get it right, so some errors
are creeping into the articles.
The “symmetrical” airfoil in the lower
half of Figure 12 in “Fundamentals of
Stability” [in the August 2004 issue] is
shown as a semisymmetrical airfoil.
The statement concerning the location of
aerodynamic forces in the last full paragraph
on page 40 is generally incorrect, as is the
next paragraph. While the Center of
Pressure (CP) is relatively fixed for
symmetrical airfoils and some
semisymmetrical airfoils for all angles of
attack below stall, this is not true for most
other types of airfoils and for flat-bottomed
and undercambered airfoils in particular at
any Reynolds number (RN).
NASA has created the following public
Web site for the NACA technical reports:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov. NACA Report 315
from 1930 has the performance data for a
large number of airfoils at very low RN,
although the airfoils are generally early
types. A quick look through Report 315 will
give a good picture of the general effects
that airfoil shape has on CP movement.
Because flat-bottomed airfoils have an
extremely large CP movement, it is possible
to have an otherwise stable airplane that will
not recover from a steep dive because the
CP of the wing has moved too far toward
the TE.
Free Flighters called that a “nega-dive”
back when I was young, and I once reduced
the tail incidence on an Esquire (a popular
rudder-only RC model back in the 1950s)
and had it do a nega-dive into the pit area,
which was full of modelers and airplanes.
This created a lot of hard feelings even
though there were no injuries or damage.
Incidentally, the CP movement is not
significantly affected by RN. For example,
see NACA Report 502 for the Clark Y
airfoil.
Ken McClenahan
Lone Tree, Colorado
Chaplain’s Corner
This is a model airplane organization—
keep religion out of it. If someone needs a
spiritual uplift, let them go to their place of
worship.
The “Chaplain’s Corner” [in the August
2004 “View from HQ” executive director’s
column] has no place to be in our magazine.
Stick to airplanes and the organization, and
leave the soul saving to those who like to
preach.
As a longtime member, I’m insulted that
the powers that be of the AMA would
approve such a column.
David B. Shafer
Commerce Township, Michigan
(Editor’s note: Please see this month’s
“View from HQ” for more about this
subject.)
Small-Model Dangers
I take significant exception to the
following words in Ed Anderson’s letter to
the editor in the August 2004 Model
Aviation: “ ... Bob’s ‘parking lot flyers,’
‘backyard flyers,’ and ‘schoolyard flyers’
would fit this space very nicely and pose
little hazard to the public, even by a new
flier working with a coach.” (Emphasis
added.)
To the contrary, by opening up these
boxes of RTF, miniature, radio-controlled
aircraft, we also open Pandora’s box—
repeatedly!
Heretofore, most RC flying (at least in
heavily populated areas) was probably being
done at an AMA-controlled field, which
AMA endeavors to locate a minimum of three
miles apart to prevent radio interference.
Continued on page 189
10sig1.QXD 7/23/04 2:12 pm Page 9
But now, with the space necessary for
flying drastically reduced and the RTFs
generally eliminating the need for a novice
flier to feel the need to make contact with
an established club, the probability is great
that radio-controlled airplanes will be
flown haphazardly in small fields
anywhere without a thought of the effect
of these activities on radio interference!
We will soon be seeing model
airplanes falling out of the sky. Both the
novice flier in the small lot and the club
member at the certified flying field will
suffer. Model airplanes flying out of
control are a hazard to spectators,
passersby, fliers, automobiles, and myriad
other entities. Personal and property
damage will result, and it will not be
restricted to just the model airplanes and
the fliers. When this happens, we can
expect more restrictive rules and laws—
and lawsuits.
As a former forensic (safety) engineer,
I say “when” rather than “if” because it
has been my experience that if an accident
can happen, then it probably will. The
only question is how soon will it happen?
And when it does happen, who will be
held responsible? The fliers, the dealer
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/10
Page Numbers: 9,189
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/10
Page Numbers: 9,189
Ahead of Its Time!
There were a few mistakes in the
“Sharper Focus” article about Joe Beshar’s
Me 163 Komet in the July 2004 Model
Aviation.
The most obvious was in the caption for
the flight photo, which suggested that it
could have been taken in the skies over
Germany in 1911! That certainly would
have been a surprising sight that year. The
correct year was 1944.
In the second paragraph of the article,
on page 66, there is a reference to B-117s.
That should have read “B-17s.”
The fourth paragraph from the bottom
on page 67 reads that TAM Manufacturing
supplied the tailpipe used in the model.
Actually, Joe Beshar fabricated the tailpipe
with some help from Bill Stevick of Dively
Models.
Also, Val Flores took the large lead
photo and Gordon Dickens took the flight
shot.
Correction
The telephone number for Harry B.
Higley & Sons was incorrect in the August
2004 “Worth a Closer Look” section. The
correct number is (708) 755-8774.
The MA staff apologizes for the error.
Memories of Flying for Fun
Much thanks to D.B. Mathews for his
“Flying for Fun” columns about Reginald
Denny in your July and August issues. It
was 1939 when we moved into a duplex on
Gower Street between Hollywood and
Sunset Boulevard; it didn’t take long to
discover Denny’s Hobby Shop just a few
blocks from Gower on Hollywood
Boulevard.
One of the big attractions for a 12-yearold
boy was the approximately 10-footwingspan
static scale model of the China
Clipper in the front window—this was used
in several movies.
Those early years began with rubberband
models, gas, Free Flight, then CL,
thanks to Walker. Now at 76 years of life, I
love flying CL Stunt and RC, both of which
have come a long way since those early
days.
What a disappointment when I returned
to Hollywood High for my 50th reunion to
find only vacant lots where my model
airplane adventures began! But memories
were relived thanks to Mr. Mathews and
MA.
Gene Haynes
Florence, Oregon
I just finished reading D.B. Mathews’
Model Aviation, 5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Letters to the Editor
October 2004 9
“Flying For Fun” column in the August
issue of MA. It was great reading about the
GHQ engine. I am a 78-year-old RC flier, so
I go back to the time of the GHQ.
When I was in the eighth grade, I dearly
wished to have a gas engine but couldn’t
afford one. To my surprise, my dad gave me
one for Christmas. The GHQ came in two
versions: fully assembled for about $10 or
in kit form for only $5. Mine was the kit,
and after putting it together, I made a test
stand on the back porch and tried to start it.
The kit came with a flywheel which my
dad also provided for me. I wrapped a
length of black electrical tape around the
flywheel’s hub and gave a pull. After some
adjusting I actually got it running. It ran
great and I was really excited.
However, when I attached the propeller
it would not start. Nothing I did would get
more than a feeble pop. It’s not quite true
that these engines would never run. As long
as the flywheel was on it ran great, but
never with a propeller.
At the New York World’s Fair I came
across some guys who were racing boats.
Two of them had GHQs in their boats. Of
course they had flywheels and ran pretty
well. So it is not quite true that the GHQ
would never run. But then, flywheels were
not too practical to fly aircraft with.
Thanks for a great column which
brought back many pleasant memories.
Bob Wright
Mesa, Arizona
Fundamentals of Stability
Kudos for trying to help the beginners
understand model airplanes. Unfortunately,
it is not easy to get it right, so some errors
are creeping into the articles.
The “symmetrical” airfoil in the lower
half of Figure 12 in “Fundamentals of
Stability” [in the August 2004 issue] is
shown as a semisymmetrical airfoil.
The statement concerning the location of
aerodynamic forces in the last full paragraph
on page 40 is generally incorrect, as is the
next paragraph. While the Center of
Pressure (CP) is relatively fixed for
symmetrical airfoils and some
semisymmetrical airfoils for all angles of
attack below stall, this is not true for most
other types of airfoils and for flat-bottomed
and undercambered airfoils in particular at
any Reynolds number (RN).
NASA has created the following public
Web site for the NACA technical reports:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov. NACA Report 315
from 1930 has the performance data for a
large number of airfoils at very low RN,
although the airfoils are generally early
types. A quick look through Report 315 will
give a good picture of the general effects
that airfoil shape has on CP movement.
Because flat-bottomed airfoils have an
extremely large CP movement, it is possible
to have an otherwise stable airplane that will
not recover from a steep dive because the
CP of the wing has moved too far toward
the TE.
Free Flighters called that a “nega-dive”
back when I was young, and I once reduced
the tail incidence on an Esquire (a popular
rudder-only RC model back in the 1950s)
and had it do a nega-dive into the pit area,
which was full of modelers and airplanes.
This created a lot of hard feelings even
though there were no injuries or damage.
Incidentally, the CP movement is not
significantly affected by RN. For example,
see NACA Report 502 for the Clark Y
airfoil.
Ken McClenahan
Lone Tree, Colorado
Chaplain’s Corner
This is a model airplane organization—
keep religion out of it. If someone needs a
spiritual uplift, let them go to their place of
worship.
The “Chaplain’s Corner” [in the August
2004 “View from HQ” executive director’s
column] has no place to be in our magazine.
Stick to airplanes and the organization, and
leave the soul saving to those who like to
preach.
As a longtime member, I’m insulted that
the powers that be of the AMA would
approve such a column.
David B. Shafer
Commerce Township, Michigan
(Editor’s note: Please see this month’s
“View from HQ” for more about this
subject.)
Small-Model Dangers
I take significant exception to the
following words in Ed Anderson’s letter to
the editor in the August 2004 Model
Aviation: “ ... Bob’s ‘parking lot flyers,’
‘backyard flyers,’ and ‘schoolyard flyers’
would fit this space very nicely and pose
little hazard to the public, even by a new
flier working with a coach.” (Emphasis
added.)
To the contrary, by opening up these
boxes of RTF, miniature, radio-controlled
aircraft, we also open Pandora’s box—
repeatedly!
Heretofore, most RC flying (at least in
heavily populated areas) was probably being
done at an AMA-controlled field, which
AMA endeavors to locate a minimum of three
miles apart to prevent radio interference.
Continued on page 189
10sig1.QXD 7/23/04 2:12 pm Page 9
But now, with the space necessary for
flying drastically reduced and the RTFs
generally eliminating the need for a novice
flier to feel the need to make contact with
an established club, the probability is great
that radio-controlled airplanes will be
flown haphazardly in small fields
anywhere without a thought of the effect
of these activities on radio interference!
We will soon be seeing model
airplanes falling out of the sky. Both the
novice flier in the small lot and the club
member at the certified flying field will
suffer. Model airplanes flying out of
control are a hazard to spectators,
passersby, fliers, automobiles, and myriad
other entities. Personal and property
damage will result, and it will not be
restricted to just the model airplanes and
the fliers. When this happens, we can
expect more restrictive rules and laws—
and lawsuits.
As a former forensic (safety) engineer,
I say “when” rather than “if” because it
has been my experience that if an accident
can happen, then it probably will. The
only question is how soon will it happen?
And when it does happen, who will be
held responsible? The fliers, the dealer